The Second Commandment

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord's name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. [72]

The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord's name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters ... "The Lord's name is holy.” For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration ... Respect for his name is an expression of the respect owed to the mystery of God himself and to the whole sacred reality it evokes ...

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment ... It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce people to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death.”

"God gave humanity the Bible to reveal His way of life—His way of love. The dos and don'ts of God's 10 Commandments show us how to apply love in every aspect of life.

Jesus Christ summarized all of God's laws in two great commandments.”'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40).

The 10 Commandments expand on these two great commandments, with the first four commandments telling us how God wants to be loved, and the last six commandments showing how to demonstrate love for other people.

The apostles also clearly illustrated the connection between the 10 Commandments and God's love.

Paul explained: "For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:9-10).

John also wrote: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

Jesus taught that obeying the 10 Commandments is essential for entering into eternal life (Matthew 19:16-19). Why is this? Because God created these laws and they reflect His thinking. Disobeying the 10 Commandments shows a lack of love for God and our fellow humans.

Commandment breaking causes suffering and broken relationships. God, in His love and mercy, will not allow someone who refuses to obey these good laws to have eternal life. He doesn't want anyone to live forever in a miserable state, causing suffering for others and himself.”

www.http://lifehopeandtruth.com/
Web (January 3, 2014

His Holiness Pope Martin IV (1281-85) "embroiled the papacy in a disastrous twenty-year-long war over Sicily; at one point, he excommunicated the whole island en masse.”

John II (535-36) was the first pope to change his given election name to that of Mercury, a pagan god.

Victor I (189-99) was African in origin and is known for a treatise he wrote — dice throwing.

Pope Boniface VI condemned as heretic the belief "In the power of man's innate will to seek God.” He was later "denounced at a Roman council held by Pope John IX in 898.”

John XII kept a stable of two thousand horses "Which he fed on almonds and figs steeped in wine.”

Calixtus III (1455-58) "Was famous for his nepotism, naming two nephews cardinal, one of whom dragged the papacy into the gutter when he later came to throne himself as Alexander VI.”

Paul III (1534-49) made his favorite bastard, Pierluigi, duke of Parma and Piacenza. He also approved the Jesuits and introduced the Index of Forbidden Books.

Benedict IX was "pope three times, from 1032 to 1044, from April to May 1045, and from 1047 to 1048.” Reason for this ungodly reign: He sold the papal seat for vast sums and then reclaimed it twice. He then handed the papacy "to his godfather, Giovanni Graziano, a Roman priest, who offered Benedict a pension.”

Sixtus IV (1471-84) was "extravagant almost to the point of bankruptcy.... He placed grossly immoral, generally lecherous, and inevitably incompetent relatives in high Church positions, bringing dishonour to his memory and decadence to the papacy.”

His Holiness John XII blinded his spiritual director and "castrated a cardinal, causing his death.”

Alexander XII (1691-1700) showered "favors on his family, mainly in the form of court appointments.”

Innocent X excommunicated anyone "caught using tobacco in St. Peter's," a threat that lasted for decades.

It was forbidden to own a Bible on pain of death. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church tortured people who wanted to read the Bible in their native language.

Sanctitas Alexander VI, alias Rodrigo Borgia, tasted blood at the age of twelve when he murdered another boy by repeatedly plunging a dagger into his belly.

Pope John XIII (ruled 965-72), was the "son of a bishop and a descendant of the licentious Theodora. For his greed and nepotism he was driven from the city by the Romans, and when the Emperor restored him he wreaked his vengeance with a savagery which shocked all Italy. The body of the Prefect (Mayor), who had died meantime, was dug up and torn to pieces. His successor was suspended by his hair for a time, then led naked on an ass through the city.”

Catholics count him one of the "good Popes of the period, as he is not charged with rape and adultery.”

In November 1302 Boniface VIII issued the Bull Unam Sanctum ("Our Holy"), the most widely known of all papal documents, which claimed that human beings are the object of "papal plenitude of power, submission to which is said to be necessary for salvation.” He also interned the infirm Pope Celestine V in the castle of Fumone until death and brought "trumped-up charges against a southern French bishop, Bernard Saisset of Pamiers.”
Psychological make-up: .”.. he was impulsive to the point of imprudence and short-tempered to the point of uncharitableness.”
Died: In prison.
Cause of death: physical and mental deterioration.
Final destination: Lower Hell.

Pope Benedict XVIFresh abuse claims in Pope's former Munich diocese

"Pope Benedict XVI's former diocese in Germany is facing daily allegations of physical and sexual abuse, the head of its new sex-abuse task force says.

'It is like a tsunami,' Elke Huemmeler told the Associated Press news agency.

She said about 120 cases had come to light so far in Munich, about 100 of them at a boarding school run by monks.

The Roman Catholic Church has been rocked by scandals involving priests in Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands in recent months...

Ms Huemmeler spoke to AP as her newly-appointed Task Force on Sexual Abuse Prevention began work in the Munich diocese, backed by Archbishop Reinhard Marx.

Ms Huemmeler said she and colleagues had been 'shocked' when the first revelations of abuse cases at the Ettal monastery boarding school, run by Benedictine monks, emerged.

The diocese has not confirmed details of all the allegations, saying investigations are ongoing, the AP reports.

The Vatican recently denounced attempts to link the Pope to a child sex scandal in his former diocese.

The episode dates back to 1980, when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising, and known as Joseph Ratzinger.”

Ireland's government summoned the Vatican's ambassador Thursday for a rare face-to-face confrontation to respond to a report showing Rome secretly discouraged Irish bishops from reporting pedophile priests to police.

Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore met Pope Benedict XVI's diplomat in Dublin a day after Irish investigators found that the Vatican in 1997 encouraged bishops to reject the Irish church's tough new child-protection rules.

Prime Minister Enda Kenny, who didn't attend the meeting, called the Vatican's role in placing the church's own canon law above Irish criminal law "Absolutely disgraceful.”

“A United Nations panel urged Ireland on Monday to investigate allegations that for decades women and girls sent to work in Catholic laundries were tortured.

The panel said the government failed in its obligation to oversee the nun-run laundries "Where it is alleged that physical, emotional abuses and other ill-treatment were committee.” It has asked for compensation for the victims.

Human-rights groups say young women were abused after being sent to the so-called Magdalene Laundries, a network of 10 workhouses that operated in Ireland from the 1920s to the mid-1990s. Many of the victims were teenagers who arrived as punishment for petty crimes or for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.”

The Associated Press

Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that "In all the departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale.”

Political Maneuvering: Making Christianity Palatable to the Romans
200 - 500 C.E.

Christianity owes its large membership to the political
maneuvering of orthodox Christians. They succeeded in turning
Christianity from an abhorred minor cult into the official religion
of the Roman Empire. Their goal was to create what Bishop
Irenaeus called "The catholic church dispersed throughout the
whole world, even to the ends of the earth.” 1 To that end, they
used nearly any means. They revised Christian writings and
adapted their principles to make Christianity more acceptable.
They pandered to Roman authorities. They incorporated elements
of paganism. Orthodox Christianity appealed to the government,
not as a religion that would encourage enlightenment or spiritual-
ity, but rather as one that would bring order and conformity to
the faltering empire. The Roman government in turn granted
orthodox Christians unprecedented privilege, enabling the
Christian church to become the very sort of authoritarian power
that Jesus had resisted.

Winning acceptance for Christianity was no small feat;
Christians were not well-liked within the Roman Empire.
Romans had easily incorporated new gods and goddesses into
their pantheon with the hope of adding to their own protection
and security. The 313 C.E. Edict of Milan, for example, granted
everyone religious freedom so "Whatever divinity (is) enthroned
in heaven may be well-disposed and propitious towards us and
all those under our authority.” 2 Christians, however, believing
theirs to be the one and only God, refused to allow Him to be
worshipped alongside others. When they refused to profess
loyalty to the Roman pantheon of gods, Christians were seen as
likely traitors to the Roman state. For once Roman emperors
began to represent themselves as divine, loyalty to the Roman
gods also symbolized loyalty to the Roman state.

Christians held attitudes that did little to endear them to
Romans. Bishop Irenaeus, for example, declared, "We have no
need of the law for we are already far above it in our godly
behavior.” 3 Accounts from around the year 200 reflect the
dislike Romans had for Christians:

...they were 'the ultimate filth', a gang 'of
ignorant men and credulous women', who 'with
meetings at night, solemn fasts and inhuman
food' made up 'hole-in-the-corner, shadow-
loving crew', 'silent in public but clacking away
in corners', 'spitting on the gods and laughing
at holy things...'4

Yet, despite such an environment, Christians won not only
acceptance but political prominence as the official religion of the
Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century.

The orthodox used politically expedient means to accomplish
such ends. They designed an organization not to encourage
spirituality, but to manage large numbers of people. They
simplified the criteria for membership. The Catholic Church
decided that anyone who confessed the Creed, accepted baptism,
participated in worship, obeyed the Church hierarchy and
believed "The one and only truth from the apostles, which is
handed down by the Church"5 was a Christian. As one historian
writes, such criteria suggest that "to achieve salvation, an
ignoramus need only believe without understanding and obey the
authorities...”6 The orthodox ignored the argument that a true
Christian could only be identified by his or her behavior and
maturity, not by simply going through the motions of ritual.
Some Gnostic Christians, for example, insisted that Jesus had
said, "By their fruits ye shall know them...”7 Baptism did not necessarily make one a Christian, they said, since many people
"go down into the water and come up without having received
anything.”8 The simple standards of the orthodox, however, made it much easier to garner a large following.

Orthodox Christians assembled the Bible not to bring all the
gospels together, but rather to encourage uniformity. From the
plethora of Christian gospels, Bishop Irenaeus compiled the first
list of biblical writings that resemble today's New Testament
around 180 C.E. By 393 and 397, Bishop Athanasius had a
similar list ratified by the Church councils of Hippo and
Carthage.9 By prohibiting and burning any other writings, the
Catholic Church eventually gave the impression that this Bible
and its four canonized Gospels represented the only original
Christian view. And yet, as late as 450, Theodore of Cyrrhus
said that there were at least 200 different gospels circulating in
his own diocese.10 Even the Catholic Encyclopedia now admits
that the "Idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New
Testament existing from the beginning... has no foundation in
history.”11

Beyond choosing from the many gospels and writings to
construct the Bible, the Church edited its message with each
translation. The Roman philosopher Celsus, witness to the
falsification of Christian writings already in the second century,
said of the revisionists,

Some of them, as it were in a drunken state
producing self-induced visions, remodel their
Gospel from its first written form, and reform it
so that they may be able to refute the objections
brought against it.12

The Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that "In all the departments
forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought
mischief on a grand scale.”13 Despite Church prohibitions
against any further research into the origins of the Gospels,
scholars have shown that all four canonized Gospels have been
doctored and revised.14 While the Church claimed that truth was
static in nature and had been revealed only once, it continually
found cause for changing that truth.

Attempts at uniformity did not entirely succeed. Even the four
canonized Gospels contradict one another. The Gospel of
Matthew tells us that Jesus was an aristocrat descended from
David via Solomon, whereas the Gospel of Luke tells us that
Jesus was from much more humble stock, and the Gospel of
Mark says that Jesus was born to a poor carpenter. At his birth,
Jesus was visited by kings according to Matthew, but according
to Luke, he was visited by shepherds. And at Jesus's death, the
Gospels of Mark and Matthew tell us that Jesus's last words
were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” But
according to Luke, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit," and in John he says simply, "It is finished.”15 As the
authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail ask, "How can (the Gospels)
be unimpugnable when they impugn each other?”16

Yet, it was the Church's insistence upon uniformity that
appealed to the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine, a man
who had his own son executed and his wife boiled alive,17 saw
in Christianity a pragmatic means of bolstering his own military
power and uniting the vast and troubled Roman Empire. The
story is told of Constantine's dream which led to his acceptance
of Christianity in which he saw a cross in the sky inscribed with
the words, "In this sign thou shalt conquer.” While he person-
ally converted to Christianity only on his deathbed, Constantine
recognized Christianity as a means of conquering dissention
within the Roman Empire and instated it as the Empire's official
religion.

Orthodox Christians dissociated Christianity from political
insurgence. In all likelihood, they compromised the truth of
Jesus's political involvement, holding Jews rather than Romans
accountable for his death. The canonized Gospels conspicuously
ignore the tension of increasing Jewish resistance to the Roman
occupation of Judea during Jesus's lifetime. One exception is in
the Gospel of Luke when it recounts how authorities "found this
man [Jesus] perverting our nation, and forbidding [Jews] to give
tribute to Caesar.”18 Less than 40 years after Jesus's death, that
tension erupted into a violent war between the Roman army and
Jews.

Jesus was probably engaged in the concerns of his time as
both a political and spiritual leader. The term Christ, both in
Hebrew and in Greek, was a functional title for a king or a
leader.19 Given the political environment, it is far more likely
that the Romans—not the Jews—killed him for his political
activity. Crucifixion had been the standard Roman punishment
for sedition and the cross a symbol of Jewish resistance to
Roman occupation.20 Blaming Jews for Jesus's death was most
likely a convenient means of obscuring Jesus's political involve-
ment and dissociating Christianity from political rebellion.21

Once Christianity gained prominence, the orthodox allowed
the Roman emperor to directly influence Christian doctrine. To
settle ideological disputes in the Church, Constantine introduced
and presided over the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325.
In his book The Heretics, Walter Nigg describes the means of
2.1 The Roman Emperor Constantine believed Christianity would provide
a means to greater political and military power. This illustration depicts him
on the eve of an important battle when he is said to have seen a cross in
the sky with the words, "In this sign thou shalt conquer.” reaching a consensus:

Constantine, who treated religious questions
solely from a political point of view, assured
unanimity by banishing all the bishops who
would not sign the new profession of faith. In
this way unity was achieved. 'It was altogether
unheard-of that a universal creed should be
instituted solely on the authority of the emperor,
who as a catechumen was not even admitted to
the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally
unempowered to rule on the highest mysteries of
the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word
against this monstrous thing.'22

Being royal required a certain faith in one's inherent superiority over ordinary men. Few monarchs lacked it. Next to Louis XIV of France, though, even the most self-enamored of sovereigns came off looking neurotically insecure by comparison. In fact, Louis refused to be grouped with other kings under the term "Their Majesties" because, he explained, from that there might be deduced "An equality which does not exist.”

For most of his seventy-two- year-reign (from 1643 to 1715, the longest in European history), Louis worked methodically to have all the glory and prestige of France embodied in himself. "I am the State," he proudly declared—even if the state needed six-inch heels to look taller. As an absolute monarch, Louis dictated nearly every facet of French life according to his own rarefied vision of how it should be. Nothing escaped his attention, from the national religion to tree maintenance. He even mandated a twenty-five-step itinerary to be followed by visitors to the gardens of Versailles. It was all about Louis.

Under him, there was no room for opposition. He and he alone decided what was good and what was right. "The subjugation of a monarch to the law of his people," he said, "Is the last calamity which can befall a gentleman of our rank.” Laws were initiated, aggressive wars pursued, and art and literature commissioned—all designed to make Louis look good. "My dominant passion is certainly love of glory," he once admitted.

For the royal emblem, Louis XIV adopted the sun because, as he explained in his Memoirs, "The unique quality of the brilliance which surrounds it, the light it communicates to other heavenly bodies which compose a kind of Court around it, the just and even allotment of its light among all the various tropics of the world, the good it does everywhere, endlessly producing on all sides life, joy, activity, its uninterrupted movement despite an always tranquil appearance, its constant and invariable path, from which it is never drawn or diverted, is assuredly the most beautiful and vivid image of a great monarch.”

The "Sun King" put himself on dazzling display at Versailles, where in 1682 he permanently moved his court and the seat of government. The palace itself was designed to be a glittering reflection of its most regal inhabitant and everyone was welcome to come and observe him in his daily, unwavering routine. Onlookers were on hand every morning when the king arose, got dressed, and shaved. At meals, they could marvel at his dexterity with an egg as he clipped off the top with just one quick stroke of the spoon. A very privileged few even got to watch him as he sat perched on his other throne when nature called. "What price does even the most repulsive thing that comes from the king have in this country?” asked a shocked visitor from Italy after observing this unusual access.

The writer Jean de La Bruyere described how Louis worshiped at Mass under the adoring gaze of his subjects: "The great of the nation meet each day at a certain time in a temple called church ... they form a vast circle at the foot of the altar, standing with their backs to the priest and the holy mysteries, their faces lifted toward their king, who can be seen kneeling at a tribune ... one cannot help noticing in his usage a sort of subordination; for the people seem to be adoring the prince, who is adoring God.”

Louis XIV was a genius at making Versailles appear to be the pinnacle of prestige and honor for the thousands of nobles who lived there, with himself as the radiant center of it all. In this way the king utterly obliterated their ancient power by having them chase the artificial gold that he created and dangled before them. The once mighty aristocracy fought for the honor of cramped rooms, handing the king his shirt in the morning, holding a candle for him, or accompanying him on a hunt.

Louis created hundreds of meaningless posts that the nobility were eager to snatch up at enormous costs, yet even he was surprised at how successful this venture became. "Who will buy them?” the king once asked his Minister of Finance, Desmarets, who wanted to create even more artificial offices. "Your Majesty ignores one of the finest prerogatives of the king of France," Desmarets replied, "Which is that when a King creates an office God instantly creates a fool to buy it.”

A rigid and highly nuanced code of etiquette flourished at Versailles, designed to flatter the nobility into worshipful and grateful complacency. People were thrilled to be granted the privilege to sit in the king's presence rather than stand, or to have him doff his hat at certain angles, which designated various levels of favor. "He substituted ideal rewards for real ones," wrote the Duc de Saint-Simon, an avid court observer and participant, "And these operated through jealousy, the petty preferences he showed many times a day, and his artfulness in showing them.” One of the most coveted marks of favor was an invitation to the king's more intimate residence at Marley. According to Saint-Simon, "It was a crime not to ask for Marley either always or often, although this did not mean they would obtain it.”

While Louis operated using an elaborate code of flattery toward the nobility, he demanded it for himself as well. He was surrounded by a sea of sycophants as a result. "Soon after he became master, his ministers, his generals, his mistresses and his courtiers noticed that he had a weakness for, rather than a love of, glory," Saint-Simon wrote. "They spoiled him with praise. Commendation and flattery pleased him to such a point that the most obvious compliments were received kindly and the most insidious were relished even more. It was the only way to approach him, and those who won his love knew it well and never tired of praising him. That is why his ministers were so powerful, for they had more opportunities to burn incense before him, attribute every success to him, and vow they had learned everything from him. The only way to please him was submissiveness, baseness, an air of admiring and crawling toadyism, and by giving the impression that he was the only source of wisdom.”

And the ranks of the obsequious were legion. There was, for example, the subject who responded, when Louis asked for the time: "Whatever time Your Majesty desires.” Or his son, the Duc du Maine, who said to his father after a long military campaign, "Ah, Sire, I will never learn anything. My tutor grants me a holiday each time you win a victory.” Then there was the Superintendent of Buildings, the Duc d'Antin, who placed wedges under the statues at Versailles so the king would notice they were askew and d'Antin would get the chance to praise him for his keen perception.

The aura of majesty was so intoxicating that basking in it took absurd forms. When Louis suffered from a fistula, a deep ulcer of the rectum that required surgery, the ailment became ultra-chic and those fortunate enough to share the operation du Roi were much envied. The surgery carried so much prestige, in fact, that men without fistulas begged and bribed doctors to perform the procedure on them anyway—an entirely new spin on the fine art of kissing ass.

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly

In another royal exposé, Farquhar, a writer at the Washington Post, duplicates some of the ground covered in Karl Shaw's Royal Babylon, such as Peter the Great's delight in administering torture (he had his son lashed to death) and the way Britain's Queen Mary cajoled her subjects into giving her their household treasures ("I am caressing it with my eyes," she would coyly coo). Written in a provocative tabloid style (with headings like "We Are Not Abused. We Are Abusive," “A Son Should Love His Mother, But...” and "All the Holiness Money Can Buy"), Farquhar publicly washes the dirty laundry of not only European royalty, but also of Roman emperors and popes. Murderers and torturers who slept with their siblings (and other relatives), the emperors of Rome excelled at corruption. The maniacal pedophile Tiberius Caesar (A.D. 14-37) left the corpses of his many victims to rot on the Gemonian Steps, which descended from the Capitol to the Forum, or alternatively enjoyed watching them being thrown from a cliff (“A contingent of soldiers was stationed below to whack them with oars and boat hooks just in case the fall failed to do the trick"). Many popes were no better. Not content with just rooting out Christian heretics by launching a bloody crusade against the Cathars in southern France, Innocent III (1160-1216) declared himself ruler of the world. He sacked Constantinople and massacred every Muslim he could find. Like Royal Babylon, this gossipy string of anecdotes is a popularized rather than an authoritative history and perfect for travel reading.

Pope's involved in shady business

ROME — Dolce & Gabbana, Versace and Valentino are facing an unlikely competitor in Italy's crowded fashion scene: the pope is about to bring out a line of designer sunglasses and clothing. "These are no ordinary pair of sunglasses," says the hype for the range's official launch next month... . The enterprise, which involves other southern Italian companies, is the latest in a growing list to feature the pope. Other products will include signed leather items, jumpers and T-shirts.”

London Daily Telegraph, August 29, 1998

"The Irish government has launched an inquiry into allegations of abuse at so-called industrial schools, where children were detained if their parents were deemed too poor to look after them, or if they stole or played truant.

The 52 schools, run by Catholic religious orders and backed by the government, closed in the 1970's.

Campaigners say the priests and nuns subjected most of the children in their care to physical or sexual attacks.”

BBC, Wednesday, 19 July, 2000

“A priest jailed for child sex abuse in 1997 is to be freed on Thursday, the Catholic Church has said.

Father Michael Hill has served three and a half years of a five-year sentence for nine attacks, including one on a boy with learning difficulties at the Gatwick Airport chapel.

The Church came under fire when it was revealed Father Hill had been allowed to work as a priest in 1985 at Gatwick, although his licence had been revoked due to concerns over his behaviour.”

BBC, Thursday, 7 September, 2000

More Irish bishops 'must quit'

The Catholic church in Ireland has been rocked by the abuse scandal

The remaining Irish bishops named in a report which exposed how Catholic leaders concealed child abuse must resign, a victims group has said.

On Wednesday the Bishop of Kildare said he would stand down, which came after the resignation of the Bishop of Limerick.

Maeve Lewis, chief executive of the One in Four group, said the resignations of three more bishops are "Inevitable.”

She said they should go quickly to avoid more damage to abuse survivors.

BBC, 24 December 2009

Belgian Cardinal appears at trial of priest accused of paedophilia

The head of the Roman Catholic church in Belgium, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, has made an unprecedented appearance in court in connection with the trial of a Catholic priest charged with sexual abuse of children.

The priest, Andre Vander Lijn, denies the charges but has admitted to kissing one child on the lips.”

Ireland: Bishops have backed a wide-ranging investigation into child abuse over the past 60 years after more than 20 priests, brothers and nuns were convicted of molesting children. The Bishop of Ferns resigned following heavy criticism of his handling of sex abuse allegations.

UK: The Church in England and Wales has set up an independent committee to advise it on how to stop sexual abuse after a number of cases involving paedophile priests. The Archbishop of Wales resigned after criticism of his handling of paedophile cases.

Brazil: Church officials in the world's largest Roman Catholic country have admitted that paedophilia is a problem. "The problem of sexual appetite is one that afflicts every human being," said Bishop Angelico Sandalo Bernardino.

Mexico: The Church has been accused of covering up cases of sex abuse and even paying money to silence the victims. One cardinal was lambasted by the country's press after suggesting that the church should not wash its "dirty laundry" in public.”

BBC, 23 April, 2002, A Global ScandalDisclaimer: Our material may be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site. This site also contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the education and research provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance freedom of inquiry for a better understanding of religious, spiritual and inter-faith issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.